Furore at Fulltone.

roberty

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Karlos said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

@goldtop ;;
Watch the above video and let us know what you think.

The premise of what he's saying is that 'white privilege' is a crime that all whites are labelled with.
He's wrong right of the bat - it's not a crime, it's just a reality. 

That's like saying tall people are cheating at basketball because they have longer legs. They aren't cheating but it's clearly an advantage.

The way that white privilege as a concept is used is exactly that of it being a crime. We are told we should pay reparations. We are told we should shut up and listen to other people's lived experiences at the expense of our own. Sure seems like a crime to me. We are told that this is a global phenomenon that doesn't change the facts. So regardless of demographics, regardless of borders, regardless of history, white people have privilege. We are told that this is true even when white people are the majority homeless. The majority suicides. The minority in cities and countries. 

"It's just a reality" is yet another attempt to prevent criticism or analysis of this social theory. It's not a very useful response.

Happy to discuss what the potential limits of white privilege are. I'm very curious as to when it stops applying. When can white people remove their privilege? Under what circumstances are other races more privileged than white people? Are there any other factors that could complicate white privilege and make it's ramifications upon the world more or less severe?

These are honest questions. I'm looking for dialogue.

roberty said:

Oh look it's Hitler Kermit and his strawman bullshit

I don't know if you're aware of how this sort of thing comes across, but it's not big, and it's not clever. It's very not clever tbh.

Neither is taking Jordan Peterson remotely seriously lol

Karlos

WiresDreamDisasters said:

"It's just a reality" is yet another attempt to prevent criticism or analysis of this social theory. It's not a very useful response.

Tell me with a straight face that it's not a reality. 

Helpful it may not be, accurate it is.

Reparations have been made for crimes of the past not because the white guy got the job over the more qualified black guy.

As for when white people can remove their privilege, I have no idea. Not a scooby. At a guess, I'd say that there will be people that will claim white privilege till the end of time just like the twat that I argued with yesterday on Facebook who got all pissy because United Utilities decide to put an Asian guy on the side of a van rather than a white guy because "you can't get a job if your white these days".

WiresDreamDisasters

roberty said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

Karlos said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

@goldtop ;;;
Watch the above video and let us know what you think.

The premise of what he's saying is that 'white privilege' is a crime that all whites are labelled with.
He's wrong right of the bat - it's not a crime, it's just a reality. 

That's like saying tall people are cheating at basketball because they have longer legs. They aren't cheating but it's clearly an advantage.

The way that white privilege as a concept is used is exactly that of it being a crime. We are told we should pay reparations. We are told we should shut up and listen to other people's lived experiences at the expense of our own. Sure seems like a crime to me. We are told that this is a global phenomenon that doesn't change the facts. So regardless of demographics, regardless of borders, regardless of history, white people have privilege. We are told that this is true even when white people are the majority homeless. The majority suicides. The minority in cities and countries. 

"It's just a reality" is yet another attempt to prevent criticism or analysis of this social theory. It's not a very useful response.

Happy to discuss what the potential limits of white privilege are. I'm very curious as to when it stops applying. When can white people remove their privilege? Under what circumstances are other races more privileged than white people? Are there any other factors that could complicate white privilege and make it's ramifications upon the world more or less severe?

These are honest questions. I'm looking for dialogue.

roberty said:

Oh look it's Hitler Kermit and his strawman bullshit

I don't know if you're aware of how this sort of thing comes across, but it's not big, and it's not clever. It's very not clever tbh.

Neither is taking Jordan Peterson remotely seriously lol

Neither is taking you remotely seriously

Karlos said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

"It's just a reality" is yet another attempt to prevent criticism or analysis of this social theory. It's not a very useful response.

Tell me with a straight face that it's not a reality. 

Helpful it may not be, accurate it is.

Reparations have been made for crimes of the past not because the white guy got the job over the more qualified black guy.

As for when white people can remove their privilege, I have no idea. Not a scooby. At a guess, I'd say that there will be people that will claim white privilege till the end of time just like the twat that I argued with yesterday on Facebook who got all pissy because United Utilities decide to put an Asian guy on the side of a van rather than a white guy because "you can't get a job if your white these days".

I think it's pretty dangerous to ascribe notions of privilege due to race. I think that's the case regardless of the races. I wouldn't suggest a black person was privileged because they got a scholarship. I also wouldn't suggest that a white kid like me who was beaten with belts for their entire childhood was privileged just because of their skin colour. That kid is not going to feel privileged at all.

That's what the debate is about. Can you ascribe societal benefits and ailments to skin colour. I don't think you can.

It hasn't been my reality. No matter how much you want to tell me it is. I will the arbiter of what my reality has been, because I'm the one who has lived it.

If you don't want to have a thought provoking discussion (not debate) about it, then that's fine. 

Karlos

WiresDreamDisasters said:

If you don't want to have a thought provoking discussion (not debate) about it, then that's fine. 

I thought we were.

You asked me question and my honest answer was, I don't know.
I can't be more thought provoking, unless you want me to be deliberately argumentative, like a Monty Python sketch. 

I agree, wholeheartedly that ascribing privilege to a single race is very problematic - tell me a better way to go forward and I'll listen.

As it stands, white privilege might be the best we have because no-one has ever looked at a belt beaten white kid on sink estate and said "your privileged". You might actually be offering up a problem where there isn't one and certainly not one as problematic as systemic white privilege as we currently ascribe it. 

Snags

The best definition I've seen of "white privilege" is the one that goes something like:

 White privilege doesn't mean you've had it easy, or that you've not known hardship or problems.

It just means that the colour of your skin wasn't one of them.

Maybe that's overly simplistic, but the idea that (in the predominantly white West) if you're black/brown/not pinko-grey you automatically have a whole bunch of assumptions and shit to overcome in society which simply aren't there if you're white seems pretty supportable. I want to say self-evident, but that's probably an unhelpful term.

There's black chap I know who has lived a life of considerably more privilege than I'll ever know. His dad was a respected diplomat, he went to a posh school, has always mixed with movers and shakers, runs a very successful company, is minted, and is very much a successful man. He's also a lovely, generous, caring, thoughtful chap who invests a lot of time and energy in others. And yet he's still gone through life copping a load of aggro because he walks into a room, or down the street, and he's black.

I might not have the money, the big house, the fancy parties and the lifestyle, but I can walk down the street without casual abuse or one eye on it all kicking off (unless I'm walking through a particularly dodgy situation, obviously).

WiresDreamDisasters

Karlos said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

If you don't want to have a thought provoking discussion (not debate) about it, then that's fine. 

I thought we were.

You asked me question and my honest answer was, I don't know.
I can't be more thought provoking, unless you want me to be deliberately argumentative, like a Monty Python sketch. 

I agree, wholeheartedly that ascribing privilege to a single race is very problematic - tell me a better way to go forward and I'll listen.

As it stands, white privilege might be the best we have because no-one has ever looked at a belt beaten white kid on sink estate and said "your privileged". You might actually be offering up a problem where there isn't one and certainly not one as problematic as systemic white privilege as we currently ascribe it. 

We kinda are. But you ignored the vast majority of my questions and focused on the one that seemingly you had a predetermined answer for. That's not really the kind of discussion I think we should have. Throwing pre-learned points at each other isn't going to do either of us favours. But here are some thoughts I've just had.

When you see people talking about white privilege online and in books, they don't address the possibility of it not existing. It seems to be a foregone conclusion that this phenomenon is ever-reaching and ever-lasting. Either in totality or in specific cases. So de facto reasoning would be that they think belt-boy (let's call him belt-boy) is privileged by virtue of his skin colour.

I think "privilege" itself is a multi-factorial phenomenon, and I don't know all the factors. But I think once you start bringing in some extra factors, it starts to look a lot less like "privilege" and a lot more like "the way things should be for everyone" - which I think is a nicer way to frame the debate because it doesn't rely on dehumanizing and generalising people in order to make them feel bad.

 It's not that I think privilege doesn't exist. I just don't think it's predicated on race. Or even culture as such. I think a serving suggestion of relevant factors could be something like this:

- Whether you have two parents who are loving and nurturing
- Whether the house has two incomes (this is increasingly relevant as time goes on)
- Whether your parents beat you or abused you physically/emotionally
- Whether you're taught manners and politeness
- Whether you're taught to read at an early age
- Whether parents do some kind of schooling before you even enter the school system
- Whether you have a close-knit supportive extended family (aunts, uncles, etc)
- Whether you were breast-fed or not
- The age you were given independence (in the form of walking to school, making your own lunches, dressing yourself, those kinds of things)
- Whether you're taught about how to manage money

Off the top of my head that's stuff that isn't related to race or gender, that could affect a child in the first 10 years of it's life, and that could potentially give a child a leg-up in the world given a particular set of inputs across those kinds of vectors. I'm sure there are more, but my brain is too dumb to come up with a huge list right now.

How important do you think race is when talking about privilege and opportunity?

Karlos

WiresDreamDisasters said:

- Whether you have two parents who are loving and nurturing
- Whether the house has two incomes (this is increasingly relevant as time goes on)
- Whether your parents beat you or abused you physically/emotionally
- Whether you're taught manners and politeness
- Whether you're taught to read at an early age
- Whether parents do some kind of schooling before you even enter the school system
- Whether you have a close-knit supportive extended family (aunts, uncles, etc)
- Whether you were breast-fed or not
- The age you were given independence (in the form of walking to school, making your own lunches, dressing yourself, those kinds of things)
- Whether you're taught about how to manage money

Off the top of my head that's stuff that isn't related to race or gender, that could affect a child in the first 10 years of it's life, and that could potentially give a child a leg-up in the world given a particular set of inputs across those kinds of vectors. I'm sure there are more, but my brain is too dumb to come up with a huge list right now.

How important do you think race is when talking about privilege and opportunity?

White privilege exists, period (imho). It's just a clumsy term.

Of course all of what you mention is a basis for privilege (just like that race clip shows with the black guys not even taking part) but you're missing a salient point. 

You're less likely to have 2 parents if you're black.
Less likely to have 2 household incomes if you're black.

Less likely to have a good education if you're black.

Less likely to have home tutoring or have parents that can help because they are more likely to work longer more unsociable hours.

The other factors you mention are unknowns or at least factors that I can't quantify but if you're black, the disadvantage of those factors I mentioned are enough to mean that others, that do not suffer those disadvantages are 'privileged' in comparison and that's the key word, by comparison. It's not a coin toss, privileged or not. 

Those privileges are due to skin colour plus socioeconomic factors. If you're white your disadvantages are not predicated on skin colour, ever.

You say the factors you listed are not related to race or gender - I say they are wholly dependent on race and gender - and, if you are a black woman, it may be double jeopardy.

Belt boy may be privileged by nature of his skin colour but that's a really basic, unrefined way to look at it. 

I challenge your assumption that 'white privilege' means 'all white people' to all people. Like I said previously, no-one is looking at belt boy and saying "privileged".

Even if you did consider that white privilege meant  'all white people', who's being harmed by that? White kids on shit estates aren't going around saying "if it wasn't for those black people getting all the sympathy, I'd be better off". I'm not being flippant at all I'm going back to my initial idea that you might be over thinking it.

It's like the Brexit argument that convinced poor people that other poor people are the reason for why they are poor. It's a deflection, isn't it.

WiresDreamDisasters

Karlos said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

- Whether you have two parents who are loving and nurturing
- Whether the house has two incomes (this is increasingly relevant as time goes on)
- Whether your parents beat you or abused you physically/emotionally
- Whether you're taught manners and politeness
- Whether you're taught to read at an early age
- Whether parents do some kind of schooling before you even enter the school system
- Whether you have a close-knit supportive extended family (aunts, uncles, etc)
- Whether you were breast-fed or not
- The age you were given independence (in the form of walking to school, making your own lunches, dressing yourself, those kinds of things)
- Whether you're taught about how to manage money

Off the top of my head that's stuff that isn't related to race or gender, that could affect a child in the first 10 years of it's life, and that could potentially give a child a leg-up in the world given a particular set of inputs across those kinds of vectors. I'm sure there are more, but my brain is too dumb to come up with a huge list right now.

How important do you think race is when talking about privilege and opportunity?

White privilege exists, period (imho). It's just a clumsy term.

Of course all of what you mention is a basis for privilege (just like that race clip shows with the black guys not even taking part) but you're missing a salient point. 

You're less likely to have 2 parents if you're black.
Less likely to have 2 household incomes if you're black.

Less likely to have a good education if you're black.

Less likely to have home tutoring or have parents that can help because they are more likely to work longer more unsociable hours.

The other factors you mention are unknowns or at least factors that I can't quantify but if you're black, the disadvantage of those factors I mentioned are enough to mean that others, that do not suffer those disadvantages are 'privileged' in comparison and that's the key word, by comparison. It's not a coin toss, privileged or not. 

Those privileges are due to skin colour plus socioeconomic factors. If you're white your disadvantages are not predicated on skin colour, ever.

You say the factors you listed are not related to race or gender - I say they are wholly dependent on race and gender - and, if you are a black woman, it may be double jeopardy.

Belt boy may be privileged by nature of his skin colour but that's a really basic, unrefined way to look at it. 

I challenge your assumption that 'white privilege' means 'all white people' to all people. Like I said previously, no-one is looking at belt boy and saying "privileged".

Even if you did consider that white privilege meant  'all white people', who's being harmed by that? White kids on shit estates aren't going around saying "if it wasn't for those black people getting all the sympathy, I'd be better off". I'm not being flippant at all I'm going back to my initial idea that you might be over thinking it.

It's like the Brexit argument that convinced poor people that other poor people are the reason for why they are poor. It's a deflection, isn't it.

Slightly in reverse order.

I don't think there is any overthinking here. I think it's such an important topic to the future of race relations and humanity in general that we really need to explore it as a society. Conversations like this should be happening worldwide.

You might challenge my assumption that white privilege means all white people to all people. But that's not what I said. I was talking in general terms (when you see people online, etc) but that doesn't mean that I think all people who believe in white privilege think this way. It's my observation of general trends and patterns. It's semantics, but it's important. This is the sort of stuff I see:

http://thebloggersden.com/time-white-people-pay-privilege-equality-tax/

One example to illustrate the point. When I see people online talking about white privilege, in general they talk in terms as if white skin is a privilege. There are rarely any provisos or limitations to this theory. It's most often used in a blanket statement kind of way. That's why people get their backs up. So it stands to reason that they mean to imply that it's something all white people have, regardless of their specific unique circumstances. So it's very easy for me to say that belt-boy is not privileged.

It's not a very good theory because it isn't multifactorial. It puts the onus on a single factor - skin colour - and then runs with it, other evidence and statistics be damned.

The factors I listed are not dependent on race or gender. Dependence means that there is a pre-requisite of a particular race and/or gender in order for those factors to come to the forefront. But we know from real world observation that those factors can affect literally anyone. Even the richest whitest kids on the planet.

So something is missing from the analysis here.

All of the "less likelies" you've listed are also not dependent on race. Again, dependence is a form of requirement, and not having two parents doesn't require black skin. There is more to it.

If something is a clumsy term, then people should stop using it. And find a more refined and inclusive term that all races can get behind in order to better the world. But I see no call for that - why?

Karlos

WiresDreamDisasters said:

I think it's such an important topic to the future of race relations and humanity in general that we really need to explore it as a society. Conversations like this should be happening worldwide

Agreed.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

You might challenge my assumption that white privilege means all white people to all people. But that's not what I said. I was talking in general terms (when you see people online, etc) but that doesn't mean that I think all people who believe in white privilege think this way. It's my observation of general trends and patterns. It's semantics, but it's important.

I'm challenging the assumption that it matters to that many people. This is the only discussion I have seen on the subject and my Facebook echo chamber is fairly political and these subjects get done to death. However, my echo chamber is a bunch of effeminate, lefty snowflakes just like me :-)

WiresDreamDisasters said:

One example to illustrate the point. When I see people online talking about white privilege, in general they talk in terms as if white skin is a privilege. There are rarely any provisos or limitations to this theory. It's most often used in a blanket statement kind of way. That's why people get their backs up. So it stands to reason that they mean to imply that it's something all white people have, regardless of their specific unique circumstances. So it's very easy for me to say that belt-boy is not privileged.

You’re right, sematics matter. Having white skin isn’t a privilege but it ‘can’ and does lead to privilege. People get their backs up because that’s what people do when they feel they are being threatened or abused so I concede that the blanket term could serve as a term of abuse if you’re white skin has afforded you zero privilege what-so-ever but these aren’t the people getting their backs up about it. The people getting pissy are the ones that still spout ‘all lives matter’ without recognising the nuance in what BLM stands for. I mean, let’s not include the fuck-nuts that actually oppose BLM, I’m not discussing racists, they have no nuance, they only have the ability to see an issue from their purview.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

It's not a very good theory because it isn't multifactorial.

It puts the onus on a single factor - skin colour - and then runs with it, other evidence and statistics be damned.

Of course it puts the onus on one single factor  – it has to to be effective.

Watering it down with more terms takes away from its immediacy and currency.

Let's not enter the burning house shouting ‘all houses matter’ when ours is not of fire. The theory is predicated on skin colour. It has to be to be of any worth to the BLM movement. 

We can try having this discussion with a black person and they just say "belt boy isn't having his neck knelt on" and it's hard to argue against that no matter how intellectual the discourse is.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

All of the "less likelies" you've listed are also not dependent on race. Again, dependence is a form of requirement, and not having two parents doesn't require black skin. There is more to it.

They aren't dependant on race but they can be. Our futures are not dependent on race and they never could be. None of those factors are wholly dependant on race but they are all more likely by massive percentages if your black and I dare say that if you're white you probably have a better chance of changing those aspects for the positive because that's how systemic racism works.

WiresDreamDisasters said:

If something is a clumsy term, then people should stop using it. And find a more refined and inclusive term that all races can get behind in order to better the world. But I see no call for that - why? Just one thing before I nip out on the bicycle; the term has only recently become part of the wider English lexicon. Maybe through discussion it can be refined so it becomes less clumsy ?

WiresDreamDisasters

Karlos said:

I'm challenging the assumption that it matters to that many people. This is the only discussion I have seen on the subject and my Facebook echo chamber is fairly political and these subjects get done to death. However, my echo chamber is a bunch of effeminate, lefty snowflakes just like me :-)

My Facebook feed is like that too lol. But my Twitter feed is more diverse. I've been following a lot more Black British conservatives recently, to see what their perspective is on this stuff. People like Katherine Birbalsingh, Dominique Samuels, and Mahyar Tousi. They've each got interested and unique perspectives if you're interested.

You’re right, sematics matter. Having white skin isn’t a privilege but it ‘can’ and does lead to privilege. People get their backs up because that’s what people do when they feel they are being threatened or abused so I concede that the blanket term could serve as a term of abuse if you’re white skin has afforded you zero privilege what-so-ever but these aren’t the people getting their backs up about it. The people getting pissy are the ones that still spout ‘all lives matter’ without recognising the nuance in what BLM stands for. I mean, let’s not include the fuck-nuts that actually oppose BLM, I’m not discussing racists, they have no nuance, they only have the ability to see an issue from their purview.

Agreed on the fucknuts. I said in another thread they have no nuance. They're proud of their beliefs and have no need to masquerade. I can assure you that there are many people who don't speak out who feel attacked and abused. A random sampling of people over the years has shown me that in certain sectors there is a kind of working class "lad" type guy who routinely feels spat upon and pushed around by all this. I mean... cue the laughter and the "awwww didddummmmsss" vengeance comments.

Of course it puts the onus on one single factor  – it has to to be effective.

Watering it down with more terms takes away from its immediacy and currency.

Let's not enter the burning house shouting ‘all houses matter’ when ours is not of fire. The theory is predicated on skin colour. It has to be to be of any worth to the BLM movement. 

But being effective is not necessarily bringing truth. I have an idea about adjusting the phrase. Instead of Black Lives Matter, how about Black Lives Matter Too? Isn't that a more inclusive take on it, which cuts right to the heart of what people are trying to say. Or is it more convenient to have a phrase you can sling around and change the meaning of willy nilly depending on the target?

We can try having this discussion with a black person and they just say "belt boy isn't having his neck knelt on" and it's hard to argue against that no matter how intellectual the discourse is.

That's where you get into the whataboutery accusations. Because in order to answer the above, you have to bring up people like Daniel Shaver and Tony Timpa in order to illustrate the point that belt boy can and quite often does end up having his neck knelt on. Then you get told it happens more often to black people. Then there is the usual exchange of statistics until someone gets frustrated enough to just yell out racist. End of exchange.

They aren't dependant on race but they can be. Our futures are not dependent on race and they never could be. None of those factors are wholly dependant on race but they are all more likely by massive percentages if your black and I dare say that if you're white you probably have a better chance of changing those aspects for the positive because that's how systemic racism works.

I think it's more accurate to say they can be correlated with race. I think statistically your chances of turning your life around once you're in your 20's rapidly decline, regardless of race. Belt boy reaches 20 years old having committed a whole bunch of petty crime, he's going into that life. Almost no question.

Just one thing before I nip out on the bicycle; the term has only recently become part of the wider English lexicon. Maybe through discussion it can be refined so it becomes less clumsy ?     

Hmmm, maybe for you. I've been hearing and dealing with this phrase (and others like it) for a decade or more. It harkens back to the 1970's with the likes of Peggy McIntosh and people like Robin DiAngelo have just been continuing the legacy. So far it has withstood any attempt to add nuance. It's too useful a tool for those with axes to grind.

Thanks for the civil exchange btw.

Bridgehouse

WiresDreamDisasters said:

But being effective is not necessarily bringing truth. I have an idea about adjusting the phrase. Instead of Black Lives Matter, how about Black Lives Matter Too? Isn't that a more inclusive take on it, which cuts right to the heart of what people are trying to say. Or is it more convenient to have a phrase you can sling around and change the meaning of willy nilly depending on the target?

I think it's more subtle than that.

"Black lives don't seem to matter as much as white lives at the moment, even though it shouldn't make a difference. Sure, lots of white people lose their lives unjustly, but there's very often other factors in that injustice, and the fact is that some black people lose their lives just because they are black. There's very few white people that lose their lives just because they are white"

Black lives matter because there is a point to saying it. White lives matter on it's own doesn't have a point to it. In society that's taken as read already

WiresDreamDisasters

Just working my way through this:
https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/ingroup-favoritism-and-prejudice/

WiresDreamDisasters

Right, gonna eat dinner! May pop back later. Lot of stuff to chew on.

roberty

Reverb have suspended the Fulltone account on their site:

https://help.reverb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360050086333-Why-are-you-suspending-the-sale-of-new-Fulltone-products-

https://reverb.com/shop/fulltone

They've been pledging money to BLM so not really a surprise

Jota

roberty said:

Reverb have suspended the Fulltone account on their site:

https://help.reverb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360050086333-Why-are-you-suspending-the-sale-of-new-Fulltone-products-

https://reverb.com/shop/fulltone

They've been pledging money to BLM so not really a surprise

Was there any new comments? Cause that looks too extreme!

The world of guitar gear is full of MAGA dudes who make bold statements about race everyday on their personal FB! Are they gonna suspend them all?!

Stratavarious

Jota said:

roberty said:

Reverb have suspended the Fulltone account on their site:

https://help.reverb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360050086333-Why-are-you-suspending-the-sale-of-new-Fulltone-products-

https://reverb.com/shop/fulltone

They've been pledging money to BLM so not really a surprise

Was there any new comments? Cause that looks too extreme!

The world of guitar gear is full of MAGA dudes who make bold statements about race everyday on their personal FB! Are they gonna suspend them all?!

Be a good start.

Jota

Stratavarious said:

Jota said:

roberty said:

Reverb have suspended the Fulltone account on their site:

https://help.reverb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360050086333-Why-are-you-suspending-the-sale-of-new-Fulltone-products-

https://reverb.com/shop/fulltone

They've been pledging money to BLM so not really a surprise

Was there any new comments? Cause that looks too extreme!

The world of guitar gear is full of MAGA dudes who make bold statements about race everyday on their personal FB! Are they gonna suspend them all?!

Be a good start.

How bout this?
https://www.facebook.com/scotty.smith.520

Don't get me wrong, Fuller has a long history of being a douche and this was probably a reaction to his long history and not just the recent post but, music industry is full of right-wing nuts, conspiracy lunatics who post that kind of shit all the time on facebook.
I could link you to another well known builder but he, wisely, removed his page a few mounths ago after being called out.
Also, Vertex. I hate that people I appreciate keep associating themselves to that guy who actually scamed other artists!

Where do we draw the line?

roberty

Jota said:

Stratavarious said:

Jota said:

roberty said:

Reverb have suspended the Fulltone account on their site:

https://help.reverb.com/hc/en-us/articles/360050086333-Why-are-you-suspending-the-sale-of-new-Fulltone-products-

https://reverb.com/shop/fulltone

They've been pledging money to BLM so not really a surprise

Was there any new comments? Cause that looks too extreme!

The world of guitar gear is full of MAGA dudes who make bold statements about race everyday on their personal FB! Are they gonna suspend them all?!

Be a good start.

How bout this?
https://www.facebook.com/scotty.smith.520

Don't get me wrong, Fuller has a long history of being a douche and this was probably a reaction to his long history and not just the recent post but, music industry is full of right-wing nuts, conspiracy lunatics who post that kind of shit all the time on facebook.
I could link you to another well known builder but he, wisely, removed his page a few mounths ago after being called out.
Also, Vertex. I hate that people I appreciate keep associating themselves to that guy who actually scamed other artists!

Where do we draw the line?

Fulltone is a bigger head I suppose. More visible and sends a bigger message. You could always report that profile to Reverb, it may be in breech of their policy

fnpt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88-dV9K_cHE&feature=share

fnpt

https://youtu.be/XHUxb_UDDrI